Evaluating the Success of Gingivoperiosteoplasty versus Secondary Bone Grafting in Patients with Unilateral Clefts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of gingivoperiosteoplasty in closure of the cleft alveolus remains controversial. Few studies have documented long-term results of gingivoperiosteoplasty and how it compares to secondary bone grafting. The purpose of this study was to compare gingivoperiosteoplasty with secondary bone grafting by evaluating the amount of bone produced at the alveolar cleft site in patients with unilateral clefts. This comparison should help delineate the role of gingivoperiosteoplasty in the management of patients with clefts. METHODS: Eighty-six unilateral patients past the age of permanent canine tooth eruption with repaired alveolar clefts were identified. Clinical evaluations of the alveolar cleft site were performed. Grading for 73 periapical and occlusal films was recorded using the scales of Bergland, Long et al., and Witherow et al. and grouped according to gingivoperiosteoplasty (n = 64) or secondary bone grafting (n = 9). RESULTS: The average patient age was 17 years. The clinical success rate of gingivoperiosteoplasty was lower than that of secondary bone grafting, 41 percent versus 88 percent, respectively. Radiologic evaluations showed that the gingivoperiosteoplasty group had a greater than 90 percent failure rate. In addition, patients in the gingivoperiosteoplasty group that had salvage bone grafting after failed gingivoperiosteoplasty (n = 19) still had less bone at the alveolar cleft compared with patients in the secondary bone grafting group. CONCLUSIONS: Gingivoperiosteoplasty resulted in bone of less quantity and poorer location within the alveolar cleft. Most unilateral clefts repaired with a gingivoperiosteoplasty will require additional bone grafting. Secondary bone grafting should continue to be considered the standard treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".